Sorry, I’m tired and writing as I reflect.. & editing,where I have, has somehow made it worse & I can’t edit here so its left as writ.

Hope you can still follow my post above enough to get the idea of what I’m saying & meaning.

BTW. No offence intended to anyone anywhere there so please nobody take any – just me, half-asleep, musing and typing – & not necessarily in that order.

& sorry y’all if that posts too long I do tend to ramble in fact …. zzzz

Aerimus : you describe yourself as ‘conservative Libertarian’ & ‘Christian’ & say people don’t understand what you beleive and attack you for it…

I can’t say I’m surprised – although I don’t mean to make this a personal attack – its just not that puzzling and I’m puzzled by your comment. Sorry but I’m not sure what you believe or why you feel aggreived and Ion’t understand what your beliefs are -and I’ll admit it.

I’m not sure about Libertarian conservative (or vice-versa) but to me, itsounds like an oxymoron. You see ‘conservative’ implies status quo, opposing changing values and understandings example : “tradit’l family values -> not accepting single parents or abortion or co-habitationbefroe marriage, et all ..

Whereas ‘Libertarian’, to my perhaps flawed understanding stresses individuals _liberty_ to choose for themselves : ie. women can choose tohave abortions, move in before marriage, raise kids on their lonesome etc …

Do you see why I find a contradiction there? Am I totally misreading your views? If so, can you see where I’m going wrong?

Now for “Christian” – okay this is a sience-based site / list and science versus the more fundamentalist or literalist types of Christian thinking clash often. There are manysorts of Christian withmany varying interpretations, denominations, splinter-groups , opinions & strongly belived pieces of dogma generally. Are you Catholic, Anglican, protestant, Presbyterian, Armenian Orthodiox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Scientologist, Moonie, Rastafarian (are they counted as Christian?) ad infinitum – well nearly to theoutside view anyhow.

I was, many years ago, a lay member of the Uniting Church in a breif religious phase. My view of what is Christian is sort of shaped by that, sort of shaped by the media and other peoples views, sort of shaped by a whole lot of things – from satires like the ‘Simpsons’ and ‘South park’ through reading Bertrand Russelll and philosophy texts atuni and discussing things in general with friends some Christian, some atheist, many like me, agnostic … Ie. we admit we don’t really know all the answers.

Now I do hate theway some “Christian” individuals and groups try toimpose theirebelifs on everyone else. If that’s what you advocate we have a strong area of disagreement – if say, you believe anyone that doesn’t follow exactly what you say will burn in hell & that because God told us so in the Bible the Sun goes round the Earth not vice-versa and everything in the cosmos is just a few thousands of years old again based only on God said so in our Bible then, yeah I’m a little cheesed off at that view because itstrike sme as arrogant, baseless, and well, plain wrong and unwilling to think reasonably.

But, I know, this may be a total misrepresentation of what you mean by “Christian.” In fact, I really hope it is because then we can talk about thinghs like rational individuals which doesn’t exclude faith but doesn’t make it the only or at least main justification for everything either.

I hope you appreciate though that some people do see the term “Christian” as loaded and meaning that unreasonable fundamentalist thought just as for some theterm Muslim equals terrorist or the term Jew conjures upmental images of some a cabal of evil skullcap wearing,sidebearded and full beared black-clad moneychangers.

Stereotypes and generalisations? Absolutely. That’s the problem. Sad thing is people tend to think that way Say “scientist” and some will be picture a mad Frankenstein in a white coat plotting to blow up the world or others a hero of Western enlightenment like Galileo. Say “Christian” and some willpicture Mother Teresa but others will picture thepanish Inqiuition or JerryFalwell blaming 9/11 “on liberals, feminist and gays.”

Me, all I know is what you’ve said in your post and I’m keeping an open mind – or trying to as I hope others also attempt to do. I can’t avoid having the odd stereotype in my head – but I can be aware of them whether good or ill and try to keep that in mind.

I doubt everyone on this list has or would attack you for your views.
I’d expect some would share them on at leasts some issues.
I’sd expect others would disagree tovarying strengthsand intensities.
Plus I expect a lot here don’t understand what you think or overly care except in relation to whatever posts you’ve left – & I’m one of them.

A persecution complex in general for everyone doesn’t mean that person isn’t being persecuted – or that they are.

There’s not much you can do about what other people think of you except talk with them and thereby either correct or worsen your impression to their eyes.

The only person you have any real control over is yourself .. & sometimes not even them!

Computers – can’t live with ‘em
– Can’t kill ‘em
(To misquote from ‘True Lies.’)

said PK but :

“Black holes have feelings too.”

noted CafeenMan.

Thus don’t mention their baldness to a black hole for they’re sensitive about it and end up in deep black depression forever after!

As for Global warming – or to be technical the Anthropocentric greenhouse effect – its real as evolution is in the scientific consensus. Most of the world is keen to start doing something about it except for a few sad hold-outs who like Canute are trying to hold back the tide of reality with the rubbish of ostrich headed rhetoric.

The above description also neatly summarise the US Republicans as far as I can see. Eg. Denying evolution, covering their ears to the discoveries being made by the scientific method such as global warming, the cuts to NASA, the politicising of reprts eg. Big Bang “_theory_” decree, and so forth as the BA’s discussed here so often.

Come on, if its not clear by now that the right wing – correction Extreme Ultra-Right Wing (the US has only right-wing & EURW as known by the rest of world politics – maybe you haven’t noticed it but its true!) – is anti-science then well it never will be ..
.. & the BA and others on this list are just banging heads against brick walls which I hope isn’t true.

As for global warming causing or worsening hurricanes it hardly takes
genius to note that heat = energy thus more heat =more energy, that
hurricanes gain strength from passing over hotter water, that we’re making more hot water & then oh yeah, isn’t it funny how last hurricane season we had more frequent and more damaging hurricanes than ever before…

Co-incidence??

I don’t think so & I don’t think its reasonable not to put 2 +2 together and NOT get 4.

Finally regarding Tom O’Reilly’s comment for the mnemonic :

“My Very EducatedMother Just Seved Nachos.”

makes an ideal replacement. I can’t take credit for it tho’ – heard a scientist whose name I missed or forget tell that one on the news.

PS. Hope this isn’t a repeat posting, computer stuffing me around as per usual. Sigh. Tryingagain coz’ not working -hope itfinallyegts through on this attempt … :-~

said PK but :

“Blacjk holes have feelings too.”

noted CafeenMan.

Thus don’t mention their baldness to a black hole for they’re sensitive about it and end up in deep black depression forever after!

AS for Global warming -or tobe technical anthropocenric greenhopus effect -its real as evolution is in thescientific consensus -most of the world is keen tostart doing something about it except for a few sad hold-outs who like Canute are trying to hold back the tide of reality with the rubbish of rhetoric.

The above description also neatly summarise the US Republicans as far as I can see. Eg. Denying evolution, covering their ears to the discoveries being made by the scientific method such as global warming, the cuts to NASA, the politicising of reprts eg. Big Bang “_theory_” decree, and so forth as the BA’s discussed here so often.

Come on, if its not clear by now that the right wing – correction Extreme Ultra-Right Wing (the US has only right-wing & EURW
as known by the rest of world politics – maybe you haven’t noticed it but its true!) – is anti-science then well itnever will be .. & the BA and others on this list are just banging heads against brick walls which I hope isn’t true.

As for global warming causing or worsening hurricanes it hardly takes
genius to note that heat = energy thus more heat =more energy, that
hurricanes gain strength from passing over hotter water, that we’re making more hot water & then oh yeah, isn’t it funny how last huricane season we had more frequent and more damaging hurricanes than ever before…

Co-incidence??

I don’t think so & I don’t think its reasonable not to put 2 +2 together and NOT get 4.

-But George Bush has the ear of the Almighty… are you saying God couldn’t change the orbit of the moon if He wanted to? HERETIC!!!!

Interesting so many people describe themselves as ‘conservative’ I’m in scotland, a country so far to left that were we independant from the rest of the UK, we would be classed as a communist country.

Now over here, a conservative attitude is ‘YOU WANT TO SELL OFF MY DEVISION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER????? SOME MONEY GRABBING THUG WHO WILL LAY OFF HALF THE STAFF, THEN DO A **** JOB????’

or possibly
‘YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY LIFELONG RIGHT TO FREE HEALTHCARE???? I VOTED FOR YOU, YOU TRAITOR!!!!!!’

facinating, isn’t it?

Agreed. Not only Am I a conservative Libertarian, but I’m a Christian too. I get blasted all the time for either “my” politics or “my” religion, without people actually understanding what I believe.

Omega, CR is saying the universe is what it is, politics doesn’t change the universe. Duh.

CR, Omega is talking about the process of science and how scientists themselves come to consensus on the research. The internal workings of the science community is laden with its own form of politics. It’s not the politics of White vs. Black, Rich vs. Poor, Republican vs. Democrat, etc. Rather, its the politics of “my idea is superior to yours”, “my team actually discovered this, not yours”, “you couldn’t possibly be right because that would make me wrong,” etc.

And both of you, you’re treading the line on acceptable behavior here. Name calling will not be allowed. The BA has banned people before and will ban people in the future. If you don’t wish to be the next banned person, watch your attitude and your words. We all want this place to be a civil discussion. Help keep it that way, starting with yourself.

However, Americans are going to the point where Bush says: “The Sun is a huge campfire in the sky and all who think it’s thermonucular [sic] reaction are enemies of the state.” If you think this kind of statement doesn’t mean anything, try to read George Orwell’s “1984″.

If you think politics influences the way the moon orbits around the sun, seriously, you must be a retard. I’m saying that no matter what a person’s opinion on the way the sun works, the sun will always worked the way it always has. No opinion can change that.

Thanks …

These are Priceless!

Cities are built near bodies of water and sometimes they are at sea level or under so they can flood.

1. God hates grammar Nazis, especially on informal message boards. *AND* they make Baby Jesus cry.

2. Pick up a history book, preferably one about geology.

If you think there’s no politics in science, seriously, you must be living in a sealed, underground bunker. Yes, cells and black hole don’t care. Unfortunately, there’s all these humans involved, and *they* care.

Completly Republican said:
> Don’t you think it’s facinating when a disaster happens, like Katrina and Challanger people forget politics for a moment just to come together and help out?

I Am The Omega said:
>CompRep, the result of Katrina was one of the most horrifically politicized disasters in this nation’s history right up there with 9/11.

You’re talking about different things. Completely Republican is talking abotu people diving in and helping out their neighbors. You’re talking about the discussion about the governmental response.

Completly Republican said:
>2: Where is the politics in plate techtonics?!?

That’s something of a misdirection. When Plate Tectonics was originally proposed, the scientific community was very skeptical – outright rejectful. How do continents move? But then more data was collected and the evidence amassed, and the theories came along to explain the data. Ergo, Plate Tectonics is now the standard model. There’s no contemporary debate about plate tectonics and it doesn’t figure into the political landscape. But it was very controversial scientifically for a few decades.

>Does Mars or the Sun or a black hole or even extra terrestrial life even CARE about Politics on Earth? No, no matter what president is in office nothing outside of Earth really gives a dang. The cell that is traveling in your blood stream doesn’t give a dang. No one cares exept the human race. So putting science and politics together seems strange to me.

Science is about studying the world and trying to understand it. Naturally, there are things about the world about which people have developed strong interests and opinions. Those opinions play out in politics. When science affects what you know about something you believe, the results get messy. People carry their opinions and beliefs into politics, so they have to carry the science that explains or confronts them into politics as well.

Ed Minchau said:
>Bill Maher used to be funny… right up until he started talking about how “courageous” the 9/11 attackers were. I can’t fathom how another network could actually gave him a show. What were they thinking?

That one statement didn’t make him stop being funny. You may not have liked that statement, and may not care for his opinions any more, but that doesn’t mean he lost the funny ability. As for the comment, it is accurate. You can’t call someone a coward for going to certain death to promote/defend their cause. There are a lot of other bad traits, but cowardace is not one of them.

Maher is opinionated, and he isn’t afraid to express those opinions. Opinionated people are often controversial. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Howard Stern, etc. Being controversial doesn’t mean you have anything valid to say. It doesn’t mean you’re not a flaming idiot. But it does get ratings. And TV is ultimately about ratings, because that’s advertising dollars, i.e. money in their pockets. So people get pissed and want to hate him and have to listen to him to see the next idiotic thing he’s going to say. Ka-ching!

Eyewitless News: Save Pluto
http://tinyurl.com/llsqb

http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=11570&display=photoshop

The worst thing about religion is its absolute certainty that it is right.

Religion, in the organized sense, is an absolute con. Like Santa Clause, it is fantasy for frightened children and should rightly be outlawed in ANY political system.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is personal and private in its belief system and is principally based upon personal experience.

I am spiritual, but I absolutly detest ALL organized religions as a rip off of the desire of people to believe in something, anything, greater than themselves.

Show me the good that religion has done and I will show you the Inquisition, for which a just god would hold the laity forever responsible.

Damn religion to hell and let the chips fall where they may,,,

GAry 7
PS, Bill Maher rocks!

Their initial designs were criticized before the build; they were criticized during the build, and there has been continued criticism during the 40 or so years since the build. (The rebuilding by the same outfit is also under criticism for being not much better than the system which failed.)

The FEMA team at the time of Katrina was managed by a political appointee with absolutely no experience in disaster management. Since 9/11, the feds have been caught up in a supposed “terror-proofing” of the country which has diverted money (and, by all GAO accounts, wasted money), critical thinking, and manpower away from the more mundane needs of fending off natural disasters, among other things.

Yes, the disaster plans established by the N.O. city council were inadequate, and yes, so were those of the govt. of Louisiana. But the Feds are the folks primarily responsible for dealing with catastrophe on this grand scale, and it is the Feds who must be held responsible for failing to deal adequately with this mess.

I don’t know where you would lay the blame, maybe its a foolish act to try and pin something like this on any one person or group, but I would like to point out the the Hurricane in New Orleans scenerio had been playing out for years before Katrina. People KNEW that it was going to happen one day and what the effects would be. Stations like the Discovery channel and such were airing documentaries of the possible effects of a major hurricane hitting and how bad it could or would be years before Katrina.

New Orleans itself and all the surrounding areas must shoulder some of that responsibility because it was their own backyard that was on the line for something that people knew would eventually happen.

I wonder how much finger pointing there will be when a major earthquake destroys the west coast, a comet slams into some part of the world or when the super volcano reported to exist in Yellow Stone errupts. These are things that we know about and can see have a real possibility of happening but are being fobbed off as being unrealistic or not cost effective enough to handle right now. Certainly one would look back and think a little more preperation in New Orleans would have been cost effective. But then again, there was alot more coast line than simply New Orleans that saw devestation.

Science RIP
by DarkSyde
Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 03:04:46 AM PDT
Jon Swift and PZ Myers fisk a neoconservative nutcase, which saves me from having to link directly to the koolaid drinker du jour:

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/08/science-is-dead.html

–Recently there was some controversy when the Bush Administration accidentally left off evolution from a list of subjects eligible for government grants–whoops! But Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush has an even better suggestion: That we just leave off science altogether. The debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design, he says, “got me thinking, and today ii [sic] occured [sic] to me: science is dead. We have reached the end of the Age of Science.”

I recommend you do not read the actual post on the Blogs for Bush site, unless you’re a masochist. The rant goes on, the comments get worse. The dingbat author’s thesis is that science is ‘dead,’ that in fact science has been ‘dead’ since roughly 1850. Nothing to see here folks, ignore relativity and the atomic bomb, refuse that useless antibiotic and don’t look at that flat-screen . . . . If you don’t like sleeping naked in the dirt and bashing open pig skulls with a stone hand-ax, until you keel over from old age or kidney stones before your fortieth birthday, science is the breath of life. If you want to keep breathing, you might have to vote against the Republicans, or just not vote at all.